<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: US economy loses 247,000 jobs in July</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html</link>
	<description>Finance, Economics and Markets</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:37:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56836</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56836</guid>
		<description>Hello Ed:

Thank you for your reply and for the additional insight. Having said that I
myself don&#039;t think a one month &quot;less bad&quot; could be considered a trend.

This fine chart to me is a TREND
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/08/zero-10-year-us-job-creation/

Again, thanks for the reply and take care, and I respect all the work and
your fine blog. Take care!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Ed:</p>
<p>Thank you for your reply and for the additional insight. Having said that I<br />
myself don&#8217;t think a one month &#8220;less bad&#8221; could be considered a trend.</p>
<p>This fine chart to me is a TREND<br />
<a href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/08/zero-10-year-us-job-creation/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/08/zero-10-year-us-job-creation/</a></p>
<p>Again, thanks for the reply and take care, and I respect all the work and<br />
your fine blog. Take care!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56834</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56834</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s hope the economy begins showing some real signs of improvement soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s hope the economy begins showing some real signs of improvement soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edward Harrison</title>
		<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56833</link>
		<dc:creator>Edward Harrison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56833</guid>
		<description>davossherman, it&#039;s good on a relative basis only - when is losing 247,000 jobs in a growing population ever good.  That&#039;s about 400,000 jobs short in a single month of what is needed over the long run.

The question is where is this headed.  The trend shows a better but still weak labor market.

Your points about dubious statistics are well-taken.  Much of the birth/death phantom numbers will be revised away much later.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>davossherman, it&#8217;s good on a relative basis only &#8211; when is losing 247,000 jobs in a growing population ever good.  That&#8217;s about 400,000 jobs short in a single month of what is needed over the long run.</p>
<p>The question is where is this headed.  The trend shows a better but still weak labor market.</p>
<p>Your points about dubious statistics are well-taken.  Much of the birth/death phantom numbers will be revised away much later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56831</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html#comment-56831</guid>
		<description>we have almost 1 million (about 900,000) jobs that have been &quot;birthed&quot; this year. i don&#039;t believe that and therefore i don&#039;t agree that this is overall a good report. seasonal adjustments added a lot of ghost jobs. this is us not u3 and u6 and many workers had their insurance expire.

these numbers are bs from the bls which should be called bs not the bls.

hours worked per week is also way south

work it backwards, 150 million workers and 26 million are under and unemployed. its 18% unemployment and i think john williams at shadow statistics has it pegged at 21% a number i&#039;d say is a good overall report.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>we have almost 1 million (about 900,000) jobs that have been &#8220;birthed&#8221; this year. i don&#8217;t believe that and therefore i don&#8217;t agree that this is overall a good report. seasonal adjustments added a lot of ghost jobs. this is us not u3 and u6 and many workers had their insurance expire.</p>
<p>these numbers are bs from the bls which should be called bs not the bls.</p>
<p>hours worked per week is also way south</p>
<p>work it backwards, 150 million workers and 26 million are under and unemployed. its 18% unemployment and i think john williams at shadow statistics has it pegged at 21% a number i&#8217;d say is a good overall report.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/08/us-economy-loses-247000-jobs-in-july.html/feed ) in 0.12625 seconds, on Feb 10th, 2012 at 2:01 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 10th, 2012 at 3:01 am UTC -->
